Combatting Cultural Marxism

Cultural Marxism is one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot, and like all such terms it tends to suffer from Adaptive Decay.  It therefore behooves me to write a Brief History on what the term really means.

We start with Trotsky and the New Soviet Man.

Communism in practice is a centralized bureaucracy with sufficient guns to carry out its plans.  They – the educated, chosen elite – unabashedly claim the Wisdom to direct all individual behaviour.  Their Scholarship, you see, has granted them Greater Insight into the human condition than any Priest could ever dream of.  They know what is best for you.  The transformation begins by use of force.

But this is only the beginning; ultimately the secret police and bureaucracy are intended to wither away, as the people internalize the dictates of the Chosen.

Thus you get the New Communist Man:

Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plain plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.
~Leon Trotsky, Literature & Revolution

This inversion of Nietzche demands a reorientation of the individual; their loyalty to family, clan, and village must be washed away.  Their selfish desired must be purged, as they glorify self-sacrifice for the state.  The ideologies of love and trust must be realligned, from individual to collective.  The Collective is the arbiter of Morality; Morality is whatever serves the Collective.

Contrast for a moment to Robert A. Heinlein’s argument for military service:

I now define “moral behavior” as “behavior that tends toward survival.” I won’t argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word “moral” to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define “behavior that tends toward extinction” as being “moral” without stretching the word “moral” all out of shape.

Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative. An animal so poor in spirit that he won’t even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.

The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for your own immediate family. This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she’ll drive off a police dog. It is the level at which a father takes a moonlighting job to keep his kids in college — and the level at which a mother or father dives into a flood to save a drowning child … and it is still moral behavior even when it fails
~RAH, The Pragmatics of Patriotism

Here you see the fundamental difference between the Right and the Left.  The Right asks the questions: What is reality?  What is justified?  The progressive Right tries to understand the human condition, to anticipate how shifting technologies and environments will impact behaviour.  The conservative Right acknowledges tradition.  It cautions against leaving the beaten path, suggesting we try and see if there’s value in centuries-old practices before we throw out the baby with the bath water.

The Right understands that at the base of reality is Starvation and Violence; that we are creatures of hunger and passion, and no ammount of Positive Thinking will rectify a failed harvest.

The Left, meanwhile, lives in the world of the Matrix: 2+2=4 is a cultural perspective.  Human nature is malleable.  We can reprogram reality to suit our preferences.  We can build the New Soviet Man.

Thus, the violence.

To build the New Man, we must first wash away the old.  Heinlein’s statement about the mother cat: that cat holds certain values higher than the Collective, she will selfishly defend her offspring with no thoughts for the police dog.

This cannot be allowed.

So with carrot and stick wielded akimbo, the Left attacks the family.  Benefits for single mothers, interventionist Police State for married couples.  Drive a wedge between Woman and Man; drive a wedge between Parent and Child.  Such selfish Capitalism cannot be tolerated.

Next comes Religion; infect the church, alienate the congregation.  Any claim to Objective Morality is a threat to their ethos of Worldly Transcendence.  Rebrand Faith in the Collective as Atheism (just as disingenuous as their rebranding of Nietzche).  Reinterpret the Religious Canon so that Charity means Statism.  Paint as radical any sect which disagrees with the status quo by using their words; paint as victim any sect which attacks with violence.

Finally, race and class; a natural outgrowth.  From Loyalty to Family, you get Loyalty to Race and Community.  This is an anathema to the Universality Ethos.  Co-opt the ‘lesser’ race, by rewriting their history; undermine the ‘stronger’ race by labelling their in-group loyalty as evil.

Atomize All the Brutes.

A rejection, then, of the natural bonds which turn individuals into strong collectives through family, friendship, and community.  Instead, a flattened world of broken Atoms, forged into a collective, unthinking whole.

***

An aside on the Frankfurt School, the originators of Cultural Marxism, the ideologues who went beyond mere economic disempowerment, and applied the ideas directly to culture.

The name comes from the Nazis, who kicked the Great Founders of this movement out of Germany in 1933.  Fascism, as you may know, comes from the Latin root Fasces – a bundle of sticks tied together to create a formidable axe handle.  Strength Through Unity is an ancient saying, and the Fasces was a representation of it.

Fascism is founded upon this premise; it takes the organic unit of the family, and builds upon those natural loyalties, projecting them onto the State.  Fascism is bottom-up; Communism is top-down.

Is it any wonder that they despised the Marxists so much more than us?

***

The Southern Poverty Law Centre, a group of Marxist, Race co-opters, have delcared InMalaFide as dangerous, a representation of the Evil Right Wing.  In discussing the broader Manosphere, the  SPLC says:

While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many.

We point out the violence meted out to innocents through false rape claims.  We point out the psychological harm done to children through no fault divorce.  We point out the systemic abuse of males, and the ultimate costs this will have on society.

And yet these acts of outright violence pale in comparison to our tone.

A cop isn’t afraid of criminals.  Criminals know not to assault them; the risks are too high.  The nightmare which causes the cop to wake up in cold sweats is not about a gangbanger – it is the Nightmare of an Armed and Unafraid Citizenry.  Such a Citizen is equally dangerous to the criminal, and the no-knock-warrant.  Pistol by his side, he need fear No Man, not even the State.  A marriage, then; both sets of criminals against the Red Blooded Man.  For the cop knows that the greater the crime, the greater the overtime.

Like the Crooked Cop, the Left doesn’t care about injustice, about the misery of broken families, the rape of women, or individual economic devastation.  Far from it.  The more miserable society becomes, the greater their funding, and the greater the atomization.  Welfare for Blacks, to create systemic poverty.  Slutwalks, so that women will put themselves at risk.  Divorce, to create a group of dysfunctional children.

They profit off the violence.

But there is one weapon which can be used against them.  A weapon so terrifying and devasting, they are waging a desperate rear-guard action to try and circumvent it.  They – the Mind Police and Meatfuckers – are terrified of one thing:

Free Thought.

Allow me to finish with a quote from the Great Gonzo Journalist H.L. Mencken:

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

We’ll win this war yet.

Share Button

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. WhiteAndEvil says:

    To any sane man, the best cure for social marxism is the truth.
    If we could only air the following video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__3POd7N8K0
    The people would realize the motives driving the occupussies.

    It’s got great entertainment value by the way.

  2. zyzz says:

    I really enjoyed this. I will come back to this for talking points when debating cultural marxists and liberals.

  3. julian Bauhaus says:

    While scurrying throughout the internet, I came across a list of the goals of the Communist movement, Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35.

    I’m not so sure about the sources, but every single sounds familiar, and seems to be related one way or the other to cultural Marxism.

    http://the-pink-pill.blogspot.ro/2012/09/communist-goals-1963.html

    Looking at that list you kinda have to think the Soviet Union really won the cold war and we have been substituted like some Orwellian version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The stasi and KGB did infiltrate heavily. Such a busy band of merry reds.

    In the past I’ve asked myself why does the left-wing want to accept gays? I thought they would have killed people like that in Soviet Russia.

    Russia isn’t very religious. I know that sometimes even without a religion people still hate gays but that could be a factor. Or maybe, just maybe… bare with me… communism is itself a religion

    Do you think North Korea isn’t religious?

    Communism in Russia looks more like a successor to Tsarism than anything. Just like communism in China looks like a strange dynasty. Just like communism in Latin America is often explicitly religious, what with Revolutionary Theology and the get go.

    Statheism, Communism and the Revolution were their religion.
    The Communists were against it because it was seen as a form of “bourgeois decadence”, even thought they had homosexuals in their countries. They wanted to create a new man, Homo Sovieticus, that will be born, live, work, breed and bleed for the Revolution.

    I’m not saying ‘durp, not real communists’, since I don’t think communism is viable on a national scale, and it’s impossible to try it without an authoritarian state enforcing it. I’m just saying that it’s not like communism swept away history or society or culture or religion anywhere it takes power. It just bends it slightly.

    As for the gays? They are a good scapegoat to blame for the ills of society. Many gays and feminists are the useful idiots for cultural Marxism, without even knowing it. It is in their benefit for us to blame gays, politicians, Jews and whatever. While I doubt there is still a Marxist conspiracy, I do believe that their cultural memes have spread and mutated. Fuck man, I’m a homosexual, and scared of this kind of shit. We need to return to the principals of classical liberalism, and start our own march through the institutions, in the hopes of turning the tide.

    Because of this reason, and the fact that communism failed to take root in the West, we now have cultural Marxism.

    The first cultural Marxist blamed the failure of the Revolution on the proletariat, saying that they are still the slaves of their beliefs and culture. They sought to “liberate” them. Why do you think Hitler rose to power? It’s because the Frankfurt School pushed too many buttons. Hitler used the red scare, and the same dialectic of inevitable conflict to rise to power.

    It seems that history is about to repeat itself. Just replace the Red Scare with the Euro Scare, and you will witness how dozens of reactionary fascist movements will pop-up all over Europe, Russia and the Anglo-Sphere.

    It’s funny you know.

    The soviet union fell and broke apart yet this horrible bunch of evil bullshit that they started got a life of it’s own and continues under it’s own steam.

    Not only that but it’s coming into eastern europe to devour the very nations that came up with it like some kind of Frankenstein monster.

    It makes me wonder how many of the guys behind this Putin rubbed shoulders with and what he thought of them then and now.

    As for the gay thing?
    They didn’t like gays. They thought that promoting homosexuality would help destroy the west.

    They’re just wrong. Acceptance of homosexuality is inevitable if people are free to associate, have free speech and a free press, and if consent is important in sexual relations.

    People can be right about one thing and wrong about another.

    Homosexuality isn’t that big a deal. Promiscuity on the other hand is.
    The issue isn’t the romantic and sexual conduct between consenting adults, but promiscuity and unsafe sexual acts (anal sex for example). And no, I am against gay marriage. Not all of us are gullible.

  4. spectre says:

    This post rings true especially of late as returning veterans, organic farmers, raw milk sellers, “liberty lovers”, doomsday preppers are now all being demonized and in some cases being labeled as terrorists. Those that can fend for themselves are a threat to control. Those in dependence can never hope to have a revolution; of ideas or otherwise. The ramping up of this “demonization” of late alerts me “they” are uncloaking for the final assault.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>